Sister Joan Chittister famously said, "We are each called to go through life reclaiming the planet an inch at a time until the Garden of Eden grows green again." Reflecting on that journey -- a blog at a time -- is the focus of this site.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

In other news ...

The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continue to march outside churches across California.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts..Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."

It would seem that the supporters of same-sex marriage in California do not understand the polity of their own state. Proposition was submitted to the voters of California according to the proper procedures. The electorate has spoken, and all proper procedures were followed. Those who do not like the result should accept the results, even if they do not like them.

I do hope the California Court overturns the prop 8 process. If it does, and does so quickly relatively little harm will be done. Of course, there is a level of trust that will be permanently lost. If I were a gay living in California I would not look at my neighbors quite the same way after this fiasco.

John, it is true that I live in New England, and so do not know the totality of the California constitution (although I did live near Sacramento and had 8th grade civics lessons there long ago). But if this measure is transparently against Section 18, it would not have made it to the ballot. I am sure that those who put Prop 8 forward had some very good lawyers to make sure it would be as legally sound as possible.

A change to the nature of the fundamental building block of all societies is not something to be made likely. I have heard or seen much about "How dare you outlaw my fundamental right!" when the case has not be shown that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. The strength of your passion is not a measure of your correctness. There is no society in the world that would have even thought of giving legal standing to same-sex sexual relationship until the last few decades. It is far from obvious that same-sex relationships should have the name of marriage.

"John, it is true that I live in New England, and so do not know the totality of the California constitution (although I did live near Sacramento and had 8th grade civics lessons there long ago). But if this measure is transparently against Section 18, it would not have made it to the ballot."

And you have plainly forgotten what little you learned in that long-ago civics class. Sec. 18 provides, among other things, that while amendments to the state constitution may be placed directly on the ballot and approved by a simple majority of the voters, REVISIONS (which case law holds are more sweeping changes in the fundamental structure of CA government) must be approved by 2/3 of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That is what the CA Supreme Court will be looking at - whether Prop. 8, which revokes fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Californians is a simple change to the Constitution or a sweeping one. The Court was asked to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot last summer, but simply declined to without explanation. That doesn't bind what the Court does now nor does it predict what the Court may do.

Fundamental rights are not subject to the approval of the voters in CA or anywhere else in this country as far as I'm aware and if you think I'm going to "accept" what a bunch of damned bigots did to my rights, you've got another think coming.

John, in your opinion (and for many opponents to Prop 8), Prop 8 was a revision. In the opinion of many other people, it was an amendment. I suppose that this will be decided by the courts. Prop 8 was put forward as an amendment, and it properly passed an amendment by initiative. It will be challenged. If it were transparently a revision and not an amendment, that point would have been clear much earlier in the process.

Again, simply asserting that one has a fundamental right is not the same as demonstrating that one has a fundamental right. In all cultures and societies (some of which tolerated or even celebrated same-sex sexual relationships), marriage has been inherently the union of male and female. That is the objective element of the nature of marriage - male and female. Since the Romantic Movement of a century and a half ago, the subjective element of life and relationships has become a larger and larger element in people's thinking - but you still need to make the case that marriage does not inherently mean a relationship of male and female.

You got that right. If strength of passion were the criteria for “correctness” Fred Phelps would be the most “correct” authority on LGBT issues.

“There is no society in the world that would have even thought of giving legal standing to same-sex sexual relationship until the last few decades.”

The same could be said of mixed-race marriages, women’s suffrage, and the integration of the military.

“It is far from obvious that same-sex relationships should have the name of marriage.”

On the contrary, my faith community believes that it is painfully obvious that marriage should be equally available to all.

“The electorate has spoken, and all proper procedures were followed. Those who do not like the result should accept the results, even if they do not like them.”

Those in the AC who opposed the ordination of Bishop Robinson should follow this advice.

“I am sure that those who put Prop 8 forward had some very good lawyers to make sure it would be as legally sound as possible.”

The Bush administration hired some “very good lawyers” to make the case for the unitary executive, war and occupation, torture, rendition, signing statements, the erosion of civil liberties, and the stonewalling of congressional investigations. The legal (and moral) soundness of these positions is nonetheless subject to debate.

"but you still need to make the case that marriage does not inherently mean a relationship of male and female."

Twaddle. Some people find some people of the other gender sexually attractive and want to form life-long relationships with them (or possibly less than life-long, but call it a marriage anyway). I would rather have my teeth drilled.

Before the Primitives start plotting their next assault on those of us who are different, they should pause to consider the following. The only thing Prop. 8 did was "define" marriage in CA. It did nothing to reverse any of the other holdings of The Marriage Cases.

California already has a civil unions law that grants (from what I understand) all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage. If that legal relationship is available to those who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex, then why strive for "marriage"? Is the name "marriage" that important? If it is, why is it so important?

Marriage has always been between male and female. To change it so that it is now based solely on affectional preferences is to change what marriage actually is. (Follow the link to my blog for a longer exposition of this idea)

"California already has a civil unions law that grants (from what I understand) all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage."

You understand incorrectly. CA's Civil Unions statute is arguably the most sweeping in the country, but it still does not make Civil Unions and marriages equivalent. Someone who's more familiar with the statute feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are still differences in tax treatment and in inheritance of commonly held assets. Additionally, some in the private sector have already refused to recognize partners in Civil Unions as "spouses" arguing that "spouses" are only parties to a marriage.

Are you saying that the sole determining factor in marriage is the willingness to breed?

California civil unions technically provide nearly all the rights, but it has become apparent that these rights are frequently ignored or denied anyway.

For example are numerous cases where partners ahve been denied access to their loved one in a hospital regardless of "legal partnership". Little comfort tjat you can sue their ignorant asses after the fact.

Indeed our attorney told us specifically NOT to get a domestic partnership because the statute was so vague, and there was so little case law, that she was not confident that the benefits would be consistently upheld, and we still needed the trusts and powers of attorney anyway.

It would seem patently obvious to me that a $10 form you can notarize at Mailboxes etc is fundamentally different from the weight and meaning of a marriage license.

Separate is not equal.

Society has redefined marriage numerous times. Why, last I checked, women are not purchased by a bride price, there is no dowry, women can now keep their own property, and it is no longer legal to beat them with a stick the size of their husband's thumb! ALthough perhaps in Hiram's neck of the woods this hasn't changed.

The margin of victory was only 400000 votes out of 10 million cast, in a campaign from the proponents that was noted for its vicious mendacity. They lied. They lied knowingly, and cynically. All the major newspapers in the state, even conservative San Diego (which also endorsed McCain), opposed Prop8.

Welcome to my blog ...

... where I try to be really clear about what I'm clear about. For example:

Religious persecution is when you're prevented from exercising your beliefs, not when you're prevented from IMPOSING your beliefs.

========

Until we end the blatant and indefensible discrimination of DOMA we are not living up to the pledge we make to be a nation of liberty and justice for all, we are not providing the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to same-sex couples and we are failing to defend the self-evident truth that our forbearers fought to protect: that ALL people are created equal.

============ Using "biblical standards" to condemn those who understand that sexual orientation is morally neutral makes as much sense as using "biblical standards" to condemn astronomers who understand that the earth revolves around the sun. The Bible may have said it but that doesn't always settle it. ============ It's liberty and justice for all -- not some. It's respect the dignity of every human being -- not just straight ones. Got it? Great. Let's do it.

====== In order to keep moving forward toward liberty and justice for all we can't just be right about what the 1st Amendment protects. We have to be smart about how we respond to those who skipped the 9th Commandment and think lying is a Traditional Family Value. ======= Jesus said "Love your neighbor." Not "Love your neighbor unless your neighbor is gay."

Basic Bio

A cradle Episcopalian second generation Dodger fan ENFJ native of Los Angeles I was ordained in 1996 and currently serve as a Senior Associate at All Saints Church, Pasadena.
My family consists of my wife Lori, 2 dogs, (Luna and Betsy), 3 cats (Maui, Cherokee and Harold) and our four nearly-grown kids: Jim, Brian, Grace and Emily.
My life in the church has included everything from Junior Altar Guild with my Aunt Gretchen to my “obligatory young adult lapsed phase” to a tour of duty on the St. Paul’s, Ventura vestry where I also worked as parish secretary to a life-heart-soul changing experience as part of the Cursillo community to serving on my parish ECW Board to seminary at the School of Theology in Claremont to associate/day school chaplain positions at St. Mark’s, Altadena and St. Peter’s, San Pedro to Executive Director of Claiming the Blessing to my current parish position at All Saints Church. It’s been a long and winding road and the journey continues: an inch at a time.

Bottom Line:

A Comment On Comments

Strongly held perspectives are appreciated. Ad hominem attacks will be deleted. When in doubt, revisit page 305 of the BCP and if what you're typing doesn't meet the "respect the dignity" clause of the Baptismal Covenant then save us both some time and energy and don't hit "send."

DISCLAIMER

This blog is the personal weblog of one Susan Lynn Russell. The opinions expressed herein are hers and hers alone. The postions taken on matters theological or political (or anything else, for that matter) are in no way to be construed as the official positions of any other person, institution, group or organization.

Other Cool Stuff I Get To Do

Smart things other people have said you should know about

“Faith in action is called politics. Spirituality without action is fruitless and social action without spirituality is heartless. We are boldly political without being partisan. Having a partisan-free place to stand liberates the religious patriot to see clearly, speak courageously, and act daringly.” -- Ed Bacon

“Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"It's time for "tolerant" religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives." -- The Rt Rev Gene Robinson

"How can you initiate someone into the Body of Christ and then treat them like they’re half-assed baptized?" - The Rt Rev Barbara Harris

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ~ Elie Wiesel, 1986 Nobel Peace Prize

"Resolve to be tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant with the weak and wrong. Sometime in your life, you will have been all of these." — Siddhārtha Gautama

"I'm so glad Mary didn't wait for the formulation of a Doctrine of the Incarnation before she said 'Yes' to God." -- Ed Bacon

"The great Easter truth is not that we will be born again someday but that we are to be alive here and now by the power of the resurrection." -- Philips Brooks (paraphrase)

"History belongs to the intercessors, who believe the future into being.” -- Walter Wink

“Patience, a quality of holiness may be sloth in the soul when associated with the lack of righteous indignation.” -- Abraham Heschel

"Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what difference it makes that you believe!" -- Verna Dozier

“We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time as our constitution prohibits state religion, establishment of it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.” -- Ronald Reagan

Let's be clear. The fact that the State authorizes a marriage in no way compels any Church to perform or recognize it. Marriage equality merely guarantees equality under the law to all citizens; it does not compel churches to do anything.-- Katherine Ragsdale